Nothing is Political - Everything Can Be Politicized

If everything is political, then nothing really is. Because if the fact that your cat hissed at a friend’s 4-year old kid who wanted to play with her is political, then the word becomes meaningless. So, perhaps the better phrase would be…Nothing is political, but everything can be politicized.

This comes from a German academic's article on Michel Foucault that seems to suggest that our modern political world has been able to satisfy our basic needs and beyond to such an extent, (exceptions around the globe notwithstanding), that everything becomes about targeting political groups with narratives, rather than solving problems through compromises.

So. There's another allegation courtesy of Michael Avenatti's client, Julie Swetnick, a 55-year old former government employee who seems to have worked at a fairly high level in a number of government departments given her statement about the security clearances she still enjoys.

She insists that in the early 80's in DC's Maryland suburbs, there were numerous parties where young women were plied with liquor and perhaps drugs in order to be sexually assaulted. The image of young men waiting outside bedroom doors for their turn is the latest sensational addition to the wholesale blitzkrieg on Kavanaugh. Swetnick insists that Kavanaugh and Mark Judge were present at these parties and that she was one of the victims of what seems to have been gang rape. According to Swetnick's story of course.

She's signed a sworn affidavit and Avenatti is making the rounds in order to insert his client into the hearings. Or something.

This after Democrats and progressives told Avenatti to please butt out.

On the other side, Sean Davis at The Federalist reports that in his couple of decades of reporting on politics, he's never seen GOP voters so furious. Davis states plainly that if GOP Senators fold on Kavanaugh's nomination, they will be punished by their own voters come November. In other words, confirm or else.

As well, it appears that the NYTimes story on the "Renate Alumnus" tag in the Georgetown yearbook and the apparent victim, Renate Schroeder Dolphin, left out a key detail about one of their sources. Or that is, it appeared briefly online before being deleted, but was caught by some sharp-eyes observers. The source is Richard S. Madaleno Jr., a classmate of Kavanaugh's, who was a candidate for state senator in Maryland and who seems to make a career out of trying to provoke President Trump. He happens to be gay as well and has a slightly notorious video out of him kissing his partner. Where do I faint, please?

A tag in a yearbook from the early 80's.

A lurid rumor of gang rapes, drugs, and alcohol.

A candidate for state senator who loves to insult the president.

A brash, self-promoting lawyer who has a pornstar as a key client.

A nominee for the Supreme Court who is accused in the final days of his hearings by several women.

Would you publish that novel? Maybe. After a lot of editing.

And Thursday morning, Kavanaugh and perhaps Professor Ford are scheduled to testify. What will happen before they even get to start speaking? Will Avenatti appear outside the Senate chambers with his client in tow demanding that her privacy be respected by the media as he positions her in front of a hoard of photographers and videographers??

Nothing is political anymore, but everything can now be - and always is - politicized.

Psychology is the most crucial discipline which supports other disciplines as well. Students have to write essay assignments on the several topics of psychology which are assigned by teachers. Students Assignment Help provides the services of customer psychology assignment help to the students.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 11, states: “Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence.”.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) is a milestone document in the history of human rights. Drafted by representatives with different legal and cultural backgrounds from all regions of the world, the Declaration was proclaimed by the United Nations General Assembly in Paris on 10 December 1948 (General Assembly resolution 217 A) as a common standard of achievements for all peoples and all nations. It sets out, for the first time, fundamental human rights to be universally protected and it has been translated into over 500 languages.

And, in Winship, 397 U.S. 358 (1970), the U.S. Supreme Court made clear that the presumption of innocence is a constitutional principle which is binding on the states, saying that “the Due Process clause protects the accused against conviction except upon proof beyond reasonable doubt of every fact necessary to …

It is unlikely that fact will go unnoticed by many Americans.

We can only hope that the majority of American get it.

It will be interesting to see what the independent voters think about the disregard for “presumption of innocence” in the 2018 mid-terms.

Are you seriously saying that using facts to determine the validity of an allegation, is a “red herring right wing talking point?” That by looking at the facts, people are avoiding the issue at hand?
WTF J2, that’s some ohrealy nuttiness right there.

The leftists got their Salem trial. Ford provided no proof of her allegations. Sworn statements do not support her allegations in any way.
This is nothing but a hit job trying to delay confirmation until Jan. 2019.

Now we wait for the next stage where leftists use this nonsense to pressure weak ‘Republicans.’ This is where you win and America loses. Kavanaugh won’t be seated and those on the right won’t have any reason to show up and vote in Nov.

j2t2 likes to play games with incredulous statements about red herrings and such.
Only a moron would actually adhere to
“Guilty until proven innocent”, and constantly wallow in their hatred for Trump, supporters, and anything not left-leaning.

j2t2, that is a good point that no criminal charges were brought against Kavanaugh. He hasn’t been damaged one bit, despite the lack of any evidence?

j2t2 wrote: Or if they are wise enough to see through the red herring right wing talking point.

I think most independents will be smart enough to see how low Democrats will stoop.

Also, most likely, the majority of voters like to see results, and “Actions that speak louder than words”.
It doesn’t seem likely that voters are going to vote to go back to higher taxes, increased illegal immigration, open borders, more government bureaucracy and red-tape, more take-over of government-run healthcare that causes healthcare insurance and costs to skyrocket, etc.

Sorry kctim, but I disagree and am optimistic regarding Kavanaugh’s confirmation and the November election.

Our Liberal Pals, most of the media, and all of the judicial committee Democrats are saying in unison…”why the rush”.

I simply ask, “why the delay”.

I have seen no “rushing” in the Kavanaugh confirmation process. I have seen many successful attempts at “delay”.

My greatest hope during yesterdays hearings was for some Republican senator, or Kavanaugh himself, to ask the Democrat senators…”are you looking and searching for a reason to vote in favor of Kavanaugh’s confirmation? Should an FBI investigation turn up nothing new, will you vote AYE?

Republican and Independent voters who are outraged by the foot dragging by some Republicans over Kavanaugh are not stupid enough to stay home or vote Democrat. There is all the more reason to vote for more Conservatives in both House and Senate races.

Kctim, what I am saying is when confronted with “presumption of innocence” in the context it was used is a red herring. The 3 bullets provided by D. were all based upon a criminal charge and/or criminal trial. The Kavanaugh hearing wasn’t any of these. Yet you guys have circled the wagons, shouting “no proof”, “innocent until proven guilty” and “presumption of innocence” as hammers to attack the dems.

On the other hand D. gets an attaboy for referring to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. As a conservative that is brave IMHO. You guys were all aghast when I referred to it a few years ago. Now you seem to accept it.

D., really “play games”! The 3 bullets you use are simply not relevant to the discussion on Kavanaugh. Using them to attack the dems on the judicial committee is wrong, as are you. BTW only a moron would bring up the “guilty until proven innocent” line when no one actually used it. I would think you know that is a strawman argument. But then so is your false claims of me hating Trump supporters.

In fact I have said many times here on WB you conservatives here on WB remind me of the people of Germany in the late 20’s and early 30’s. Good people led down the wrong path based upon propaganda and misinformation. Your defense of Trump and his lies needs to be called out, even if your cognitive dissonance cannot allow you to recognize them for the lies they are.

Royal, while I agree that this is all the more reason to vote for more Conservatives in both House and Senate races, I have serious concerns that getting steamrolled over and over again won’t motivate enough Republicans and Independents to show up to the polls.

J2, people on the right are usually “shouting “no proof”, “innocent until proven guilty” and “presumption of innocence” because we respect the rule of law.
From g*ssip to allegations to criminal charges, the burden of proof falls on the accuser.

I believe d.a.n has stated many times that he is not a conservative, J2. IF he is referring to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights because he supports it, I am sure he and I could have a rational, adult discussion about it.
If he is just using your own words against you, then kudos.

Phx8, I believe that both testimonies were compelling. I believe Ford was traumatized but not by Kavanaugh. Her story has holes in it that you can drive a semi through. Four people that she claims as witnesses say they know nothing about it. She says that she is 100% sure it was Kavanaugh and Kavanaugh said at the end he is 100% sure of his innocence.

KAP,
Personally, I reserved judgment on the specific question of Kavenaugh & Ford, but after seeing it, I believe her, and I think he is lying. However, you are right that there may not be corroborating witnesses. It was a long time ago, and it seems to me there would be little reason for anyone other than Kavenaugh & Ford to even remember it. The possible exception is Judge.

The idea that Judge should not be excused because of issues with alcoholism, drug abuse, depression, health issues, whatever, is not a valid reason to be excused. Doesn’t work that way, short of his being on his death bed.

So the FBI will do what I called for all along: investigate. Do a background check. They may be able to find out quite a bit, and verify details such as the location of the house, the date, recollections of other friends, and so on.

Another issue will rise, IF this is still in play next week. Kavenaugh lied under oath several times. They may be dismissed as white lies; nevertheless, he lied in order to minimize his drinking, proneness to blackouts, and, um, unflattering relationships with other girls.

Personally, I think his opening statement gave the best example of why he should never be on the SCOTUS:

“This whole two-week effort has been a calculated and orchestrated political hit fueled with apparent pent-up anger about President Trump and the 2016 election, fear that has been unfairly stoked about my judicial record, revenge on behalf of the Clintons, and millions of dollars in money from outside left-wing opposition groups.”

A Supreme Court Judge is supposed to be independent, to make decisions about the law separated from political leanings. Of course they all have their private political opinions, but Kavenaugh sounds like a partisan hack, a guy being put on the Supreme Court to legislate a GOP agenda, and rule against Democrats. There are plenty of places in politics for a guy like that. The Supreme Court is NOT one of them.

j2t2 wrote: In fact I have said many times here on WB [that] you conservatives here on WB remind me of the people of Germany in the late 20’s and early 30’s. Good people led down the wrong path based upon propaganda and misinformation.

I don’t see the comparison at all, nor anything remotely approaching that. You realize you are virtually calling people NAZIs?

j2t2 wrote: Your defense of Trump and his lies needs to be called out,

Sure, if they are truly lies, call them out.

However, once again: ACTIONS SPEAK LOUDER THAN WORDS”

But here’s and experiment.

Can you please do us a favor?

Can you please list the top five worst lies by Trump, and/or things that Trump said or did?

Then, try to list the top five worst lies by Barack Obama, and/or things that Barack Obama said or did?

Then, try to list the top five worst lies by George W. Bush, and/or things that Bush said or did?

Then, try to list the top five worst lies by Hillary Clinton, and/or things that Hillary Clinton said or did?

Then, try to list the top five worst lies by any other president, and/or things that any other president said or did?

Sometimes, politicians lie, and people die.

Sometimes, people die, and politicians lie.

Sometimes, politicians also do something good.
Even a broken clock is correct twice a day.

I will start with one of the two worst past presidents (in my opinion, and it is based on what they did; not merely based on what they said).

In my opinion, one of the worst lies ever by a politician and his administration was G.W. Bush, and one of the reasons for the severe demise of the Republican party for many years, was the lies about WMD and the war in IRAQ, and the thousands of U.S. solders who died, and the many tens or hundreds of thousands killed in Iraq, and the trillions of dollars in cost.

Another one of the worst, if not the worst things ever done by U.S. politician was Lyndon B. Johnson’s and his administration, for the escalation of the war in Vietnam, the many tens of thousands of U.S. troops that died and maimed. LBJ agonized over his legacy. In LBB’s early senate candidate days, he had virtually endorsed white supremacy, but later pushed for many civil rights reforms.

Phx8, Ford drank also she wasn’t the angel you make her out to be. Her story has changed a few times already and the attorney that questioned her said she would never bring her case near a court room because of all the holes. The witnesses gave written testimony under a felony penalty if they lied that they know nothing of what she claimed. Her best friend even said she doesn’t even know Kavanaugh. Like I said she may have been traumatized but it wasn’t Kavanaugh.

phx8, by the way most of the evidence presented by Ford in the form of witnesses are in favor of Kavanaugh. Why did they have to scrub Ford’s year book? It was because it would be incriminating to Ford if it were presented as evidence.

The first thing I look at when answering this question is the way she presented herself while testifying. After 36 years of dealing with the episode, I would think the emotion would be spent. I think, after dealing with the decision to come forward, (and the fact she tipped off the WPost) that her presentation would be more deadpan, brief, and as short as possible to get it over with. I think the tears were a little out of place.

Also, when you take into account her father works for the FBI and she is an active protestor against President Trump, and lives and works in very liberal circles, the possibility that an incident turned into a case of mistaken identity on purpose to deal with the left’s political dilemma.

I don’t know if she was an angel or not, nor do I care. Her story changed in minor details, which she corrected.

As for the scrubbing of her yearbook, that looks like a right wing conspiracy theory. A search shows Limbaugh was promoting it. It doesn’t make much sense, because there are hard copies out there. Something like scrubbing a yearbook is virtually impossible to hide, and if there was anything sinister, it will be obvious in the FBI investigation.

I don’t care if Kavenaugh drank to excess (as long as he no longer does it, which no one is suggesting). The only reason it is an issue at all is that he appears to have a pattern of becoming belligerent and aggressive towards women. The FBI will be looking at a possible pattern.

WW,
Dr. Ford made the allegation before Kavenaugh was even nominated. He was on the short list when she made her allegation, and she made it clear she wanted anonymity. She obviously prepared for her testimony, but she struck me as nervous and anxious to be cooperative. Did she do this for a political motive? That question has to be asked. There are people who are fabricators. That is yet another reason why there needs to be an FBI investigation in the first place.

Kavenaugh’s demeanor was aggressive and defiant at times, and petulant and even sniveling at others. Twice he tried to turn questions back on the Senators asking the questions, which a judge should NEVER do. NEVER. Several times he lied under oath. They were white lies. Small things about slang and drinking games that were obviously NOT drinking games, and so on. Nevertheless, a judge up for the Supreme Court should not lie under oath during his confirmation hearing, not even about small things.

phx8, You consider how many people were supposedly at the party a minor detail? Or where it was, how you got there or how you left? Like the prosecutor that questioned her said she would never bring this to trial with all the holes in her story. If she ever goes to court in Maryland it will be thrown out because of it.

It can’t go to court. It was 36 years ago. The FBI can extend their background check of Kavanaugh if they normally do background checks on SC nominees, but there is no crime to be investigated and if there was the statute of limitations is passed.

I would expect the emotion coming from Kavanaugh. His family sat through the harassment on his first day. He spent 10 days of nonstop accusations without being able to clear himself. He was ready to testify to the charge when it was made, but the accusations went unquestioned for 10 days! Of course he was emotional.

His wife also had to endure the harassment of having her emails scoured and her life put under the microscope. What depths will the left go to if they can intimidate the spouse of a nominee? That’s low, really low. That’s a war on women.

Fans of Kavanaugh will be glad to know the FBI wanted to interview the other two women who made claims about him TONIGHT, Friday night. Swetnik (Avenatti’s client) and Ramirez deferred until sometime this weekend.

Oh, WW, don’t feel too sorry for Kavanaugh. He participated in the Starr prosecution of Clinton, and even drafted a memo with 10 s*xually explicit questions he wanted to ask. You know what they say about karma. Kavanaugh helped build this world of intense partisanship. Now he is reaping the benefits. Couldn’t happen to a nicer guy. Here is a link to some of the graphic questions Kavanaugh wanted to ask a sitting president:

I don’t see the comparison at all, nor anything remotely approaching that. You realize you are virtually calling people NAZIs?

I suppose you don’t D. In fact had you seen anything and admitted it I would have been in shock. I’m not calling anyone a Nazi I am saying there were many victims of the Nazi’s, taken in by the promises of “Make Germany Great Again”. I know as a conservative you think it couldn’t happen here so here is some food for thought.

Sure, if they are truly lies, call them out.
However, once again: ACTIONS SPEAK LOUDER THAN WORDS”

Compare the quantity of the lies D.. The sheer volume of Trump’s lies leads one to believe we are dealing with a narcissist, a pathological lair not someone who says something as a campaign promises and fails to deliver. When the man is laughed at during his speech at the UN you should take notice not blame the UN or saying he isn’t as bad as some before him. When you get to the “broken clock is right twice a day” as your defense of the man it is time to consider you could pick a better man.

Oh please D., when he is talking he is lying more often than not, at least for the first year and a half of his presidency. He really hasn’t done that much, despite your claims to the contrary, other than the two SCOTUS picks that will have long lasting damage to the country but a lie is talk not action. This silly reasoning that somehow he should be excused for his lies because he has done… well does that also apply to all them catholic priest that have had their way with young boys? When it does then your deflection may have some merit.

phx8 let me ask you a question. If you were accused of raping a woman, and that woman cannot even tell what day it was what year it was and the place it happened but is 100% sure it was you how would you feel?

Here’s the thing. The FBI will investigate that date and location. They will look at Safeway records of employment for Judge, combine it with the calender provided by Kavanaugh, and nail it down as much as possible. The FBI will drive Dr. Ford around that neighborhood and attempt to identify the house. Btw, a relative of Judge lived in that area.

Some of this will never be resolved. There are two other similar cases being investigated, Swetnik and Ramirez, and the same will be applied to them.

I was opposed to Kavanaugh before the allegations by Ford, Ramirez, and Swetnik, and I will still oppose it regardless of how the rest turns out. This guy has no business being on the Supreme Court. But I have no problem whatsoever with investigating the allegations of the women, and letting the chips fall where they may.

And here is a question for you, KAP, and anyone else who cares to participate. If Kavanaugh is exonerated of everything, but did tell several ‘white lies’ about drinking, blacking out, drinking games, and relationships with women- while under oath- would you approve of him going on to the Supreme Court?

I’m conflicted about that, I will admit. Lying under oath during a confirmation hearing for the Supreme Court is pretty bad. Lying about bad behavior during high school- assuming nothing worse happened- mmm, I would have to think about it. I dunno. I think it is disqualifying, lying under oath…

Phx8, if you or the FBI can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that he did lie then yes he should be disqualified. Also if Ford was found to lie under oath she should be charged with a felony. Lying under oath for anyone should be a felony and that includes liberals and democrats along with republicans. Your comment about you demanding independent investigation is BUS××T you would be just as pissed off as Kavanaugh.

j2t2 wrote:Oh please D., when he is talking he is lying more often than not, at least for the first year and a half of his presidency.

Again, there is no defence for inexcusable statements, but actions speak louder than words.
But, what are the most terrible lies and actions by Trump?

j2t2 wrote:He [Trump] really hasn’t done that much, despite your claims to the contrary, other than the two SCOTUS picks that will have long lasting damage to the country but a lie is talk not action.

Really?
None of the following count?
I think what you and many on the left fail to recognize is there are people (like Trump) that don’t think before they engage their mouth, but their actions indicate that they are truly interested in accomplishing good things for the nation, such as:

the economy?

lower unemployment?

the push for fairer trade?

decimation of ISIS?

GDP over 4%?

stronger border security?

decreased illegal immigration?

etc.?

j2t2 wrote:This silly reasoning that somehow he should be excused for his lies because he has done… well does that also apply to all them catholic priest that have had their way with young boys? When it does then your deflection may have some merit.

You confuse words with actions, so what is truly “silly” is your attempt to equate words with actions.

So, what are a few of the worst things Trump said or did that is so terrible?
Then compare words to actions.
Then do the same with past presidents and politicans (such as Hillary Clinton).
My guess is you will not bother to try.
Instead, many on the left prefer to wallow in the nasty, circular partisan warfare.

KAP,
Kavanaugh lied a number of times under oath. He lied about the meanings of a type of triangle, boof, Renata Alumnus, and ralph. Those were really stupid, trivial lies, yet they were intended to deceive people about s*x and drinking in high school. He lied about not watching Ford’s testimony. There are multiple witnesses. Kavanaugh watched the proceedings.

He lied about potential witnesses “refuting” Ford’s claim. They did not remember, which is NOT the same as refuting. As a judge, Kavanaugh certainly knew this, yet intentionally mischaracterized accounts.

He lied about his excessive drinking in high school and college. There are multiple witnesses. These are stupid lies to tell under oath. Totally unnecessary. But he did it.

I doubt he will wait for the FBI report. There are too many lies- small, stupid, trivial lies, yet unquestionably lies under oath- and they will be easy to document even in a quick investigation. Trump and Kavanaugh will make up an excuse and he will withdraw.

dbs,
Identity politics? Use your brain. If 50 different groups unite under the Democratic banner, and only one major group belongs to the GOP, the party practicing identity politics is by definition the one with only one group. The identity politics of the GOP caters to older, white, rural males. That is the core constituency.

Just look at the make-up of the Senate Judiciary Committee: 11 old white males, mostly from states with large rural populations. Not only are there no females on that committee, there has NEVER been one. Only ONE identity works in order to belong to that Committee. Of course, with only 4 female Senators and 47 males, it is tough to overcome the limitations of GOP identity politics.

Phx8, I watched the whole thing. The triangle thing is a drinking game much like beer pong that my son in law and over 21 grand kids play. Bounce a ping pong ball in a cup drink the beer bounce a coin into the cup drink the beer in the triangle thing. Ralph is vomiting I’ve done it myself, while in the navy we called it shark hunting. Phx8 with all the trivial things you say are lies are just making you look stupid. If what happened to Ford at a party most people would remember if it included $ex.

d.a.n.,
dbs linked a silly article on identity politics from Hillsdale ‘College.’ Hillsdale is basically a right wing propaganda mill that funds itself with ‘private contributions’ and publishes mediocre right wing articles.

KAP,
You are describing a version of Beer Pong, or maybe a game called ‘quarters’ (which I have never heard of), not the triangle thing.

You and I know what ‘ralph’means. Kavanaugh pretended the juvenile reference did not involve heavy drinking:

“I’m known to have a weak stomach … whether it’s with beer or with spicy food or anything.” When Whitehouse pursued the “Ralph Club” question further, Kavanaugh cut off any discussion of his possible excessive drinking with a recitation of his résumé. When Whitehouse tried to bring him around back to alcohol consumption—”Did it relate to alcohol? You haven’t answered that.”—Kavanaugh said, “I like beer. I like beer. I don’t know if you do” and “Do you like beer, Senator, or not?” Do you?!”

phx8, Beer pong, Devils triangle the cups are set up in a triangle for both. So he had a weak stomach and if he drank to much he puked so what!!!!!!! I’ve puked as a teen and I’ll bent judges around the country including those on the SCOTUS have puked when they drank to much as a teen. phx8, I’ll bet if we go through Whitehouse’s year book we will find questionable things. Like I said phx8 “BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT”. This whole circus could have been avoided if Feinstein would have brought the letter to the committee and done a “CONFIDENTIAL” investigation through the FBI months ago. But most “normal” people know this was a last ditch effort to delay the process. Those 2 other women aren’t even credible especially when the N. Y. times won’t even print it and the woman who went to no less then 10 rape parties, what normal woman goes to 10 rape parties without reporting it?

I know. I read it.
However, I am not referring to that article.
I am referring to the quote in my previous post from what Senator Mazie Hirono said (i.e. “…men in this country should all shut up and step up”), and what many on the left are saying that is blaming this for old white men.

The New York Times announced it was hiring a woman (Sarah Jeong) to write an article.
Readers immediately discoverd on Jeong’s Twitter that she wrote:

“Oh man it’s kind of sick how much joy I get out of being cruel to old white men.”

“Dumbass f******* white people marking up the internet with their opinions like dogs pissing on fire hydrants.”

“#CancelWhitePeople”

“White people have stopped breeding. You’ll all go extinct soon. That was my plan all along.”

People have been fired for far less, but “New York Times” didn’t, and claimed it was not Jeong’s fault, because she was the real victim. But, then, it is the “New York Times” afterall.
Posted by: d.a.n at September 29, 2018 2:27 PM

KAP,
All three accusers of Kavanaugh asked for an FBI investigation. In his Senate hearing, Kavanaugh repeatedly refused to ask for one. Dr. Ford voluntarily took a lie detector test. Kavanaugh did not volunteer, although he ruled from the bench in 2016 that polygraphs could be used for background checks.

Teenage drinking and throwing up is not the issue. Neither is alcoholism. Not even blacking out. Juvenile yearbook entries are not the issue either. The issue is what he did to women when he became inebriated. His demeanor during the hearing does not prove anything, but during that hearing he was his own worst enemy.

Kavanaugh was a bad pick. The GOP tried to “plow right through” the process and jam him in as fast as possible.

It was NOT the job of the Democrats to help that happen.

Was the timing of all this intentional? Maybe. Personally, I doubt there was a plan. It would be nice to think Democrats are that clever, but like I said, I doubt it.

Also, it is highly unlikely Feinstein leaked the letter. Senators never do that kind of dirty work. They delegate it to a staffer. It is also possible a staffer did it on their own. And it is also possible someone outside the staff saw it, or that someone on Ford’s side of things did it on her behalf without her even knowing it.

Extra for experts: Did you know Kavanaugh did the leaks for Ken Starr during the Clinton impeachment?

Phx8 he was pissed off and I don’t blame him for it. The fact that Feinstein had information that she sat on is telling for your side. It could have been investigated in a confidential way as to Ford’s wishes. Yet democrats choose not to and caused this circus.

Kavanaugh was interviewing for a lifetime appointment on the highest court in the land. He was supposed to exhibit a judicial temperament. How can he be a fair judge with that kind of approach? A Justice has to interact with people he or she does not like, or agree with. A Justice is expected to apply the law equally, regardless of the politics. This guy did not look capable of doing that. When the heat was turned up, he behaved exactly how a judge is NOT supposed to behave.

But don’t feel sorry for him. He’s a dirty guy, KAP, a guy who made his bones spreading conspiracy theories about Vince Foster, leaking during the Clinton impeachment, and writing a memo (which I linked) with s*xually explicit questions to ask a sitting president.

It was so bad during the Bush years, no one is being allowed to see 100,000 pages of documents. Trump is covering them. You can be sure it is not because Kavenaugh’s performance was so awesome that the public would be overwhelmed.

You know how many documents from the Obama administration had to be withheld from the public view when Kagan was up for a seat? Zero. None. Nil.

Let’s see if he takes a lie detector test. In 2016 he ruled they could be used in a background check. Dr. Ford took one. Think he will? After all, he’s the one up for a lifetime appointment.

Kavanaugh is a dirty guy, as partisan as they get, and it was on display during that hearing. What goes around, comes around. Couldn’t happen to a nicer guy, I mean, a crappier guy. He deserves this, KAP. He earned it.

Wow…it is nearly as much fun reading all the experts on WatchBlog who know who is lying and who is truth telling; as it was to watch the actual confirmation hearing.

It seems that some writing here can tell when someone is telling the truth by body language, speech, and general demeanor. One would guess they have never met an actor or actress or watched them perform.

The world is full of deceivers of all race and gender. I believe a “flim-flam” man or woman would have all of phx8’s trust in minutes.

Our Buddy phx8 claims he can detect lies in Kavanaugh’s statement as he is so tuned into the testimony. Hmmm…did this Sherlock Holmes detect any lies in Ms. Ford’s testimony? If not, we wonder why? Does his sleuthing ability only apply to men?

The hearing was not a trial. No evidence was presented. We listened to two people recount their version of events (or non-events). Based upon that only, phx8 and others have made decisions about character, judgement, veracity and more. What hubris. What blind political stupidity.

I think phx8 you forget that this same thing may happen the next time a Democrat gets to nominate a justice. The Garland nomination was child’s play compared to Kavanaugh. Your side has set a pressident that you may come to regret. Your side has even said and I quote “we will use all means possible to block this nomination” you will come to regret that decision.

phx8 refuses to look into the collusion between Ford and her associates before she sent a tip to the WPost and wrote a letter to a politician. Who are the people who persuaded her to do both? What were their motives in persuading Ford to, perhaps, perjure herself?

phx8 wants us to focus on the minutia in Kavanaugh’s emotional responses. He doesn’t want us to look behind the curtain. Perhaps we would find the same crumbs we’ve been seeing with the situation Papadopoulos found himself in.

Well, that’s a stunner. The White House is openly intervening in the FBI investigation. The FBI will only be able to talk to certain named witnesses. Anything to do with drinking is off the table. Anything to do with the Swetnik accusation is off the table. No follow up on leads will be allowed.

phx8 do you not understand the term credible? If you think Swetnik as a COLLEGE STUDENT going to HIGH SCHOOL parties and as an adult witnesses gang rapes on ten mind you different occasions is credible then I have some reservations on your mental stability. Do you not know that she can be charged as an accomplice seeing how she was an ADULT. If Avanati is an Attorney he should know this and could get disbarred for false claims.

KAP,
Then why forbid the FBI from talking to her? Her lawyer contacted the FBI and asked for an interview. Not exactly the behavior one would expect from a fabricator. She has volunteered to take a lie detector test, on the condition that Kavanaugh also take one. And remember, Kavanaugh ruled they were a legitimate tool to use in a background investigation.

Why shut down the interview process by limiting it to a few people? Really? Why forbid the FBI from obtaining payroll records from the place where Judge had a summer job, which would have narrowed the date.

Here’s the problem: if the White House limits the background check and it turns out there was more on Kavanaugh that could have been revealed, it would be disastrous for the legitimacy of the Supreme Court, and the country. There is no reason not to get this as right as possible right now, in the next week. Why on earth would the GOP run this risk?

KAP,
Swetnick’s claims are pretty extreme and should be approached with caution; nevertheless, she swore they were true under penalty of perjury. She has an MCSE and a list of security clearances as long as your arm. She might be a fabricator. But can you afford to take the chance, and watch the White House forbid the FBI from talking to her?

Remember, Avenatti made good on some pretty wild claims in the past. It turned out Trump did, in fact, pay a p*rn star hush money just before the election. Trump’s personal lawyer, Michael Cohen, pleaded guilty to eight felonies, and swore he paid the hush money at the behest and in coordination with the president in order to influence the outcome of the election. Trump and Cohen did the same with another woman. That’s two felonies right there, with paper trails and witnesses that will make it very difficult for Trump to evade.

As for Swetnick, it is the job of the FBI to investigate. There is an incredible allegation by a credible woman with a credible attorney, with a sworn affidavit. Avenatti has made it clear that if the White House tries to obstruct the investigation, he and his client will take the allegations public. Avenatti has made good on his claims in the past. Just ask Stormy Daniels and Michael Cohen. How can anyone even consider putting someone on the Supreme Court for a lifetime appointment, without knocking this down first?

What will happen if the allegations are true? What a horrendous mess, what a mess.

I see a crushing libel suit coming in the near future. Dr Ford had better hope that go fund me site has millions in it, cause she’s gonna need it. I doubt harris, Booker Durban, and so on are going to pony up the cash she’ll need to pay the lawyers, and the damages he’ll be awarded. Silly rabbit, tricks are for kids. Lol

phx wrote:Swetnick’s claims are pretty extreme and should be approached with caution; nevertheless, she swore they were true under penalty of perjury.

So what?
There’s no threat of being prosecuted for perjury, because it is impossible to disprove the accusers allegations when all of the accusers’ stories lack any examinable details, or basic facts, such as:

location where it happened;

date when it happened;

time when it happened;

witnesses to corroborate what happened;

forensic evidence;

Essentially, no proof of any kind, which cannot be proven, or disproven. Especially when it was 36 years ago.

Oh, for crying out loud, dbs, did you even read the article? It contains such gems as this:

“The beginnings of identity politics can be traced to 1973, the year the first volume of Alexander Solzhenitsyn’s Gulag Archipelago—a book that demolished any pretense of communism’s moral authority—was published in the West. The ideological challenge of socialism was fading, its fighting spirit dwindling. This presented a challenge for the Left: how to carry on the fight against capitalism when its major ideological alternative was no longer viable?”

WTF. That’s just the first paragraph. It gets worse. A lot worse:

“The Left found its answer in an identity politics that grew out of anti-colonialism. Marx’s class struggle was reformulated into an ethno-racial struggle—a ceaseless competition between colonizer and colonized, victimizer and victim, oppressor and oppressed. Instead of presenting collectivism and central planning as the gateway to the realization of genuine freedom, the new multiculturalist Left turned to unmasking the supposed power relations that subordinated minorities and exploited third world nations.”

There are so many appallingly dumb statements in those first two paragraphs, it is hard to even know where to start. ID politics began in 1973? Really? That’s just stupid. And it had to do with the “Gulag Archipelago”? Really? Why? The Soviet Union didn’t fall until the late 80’s. 1973? This writer is dumb as rocks. He wants to conflate ID politics with a variety of ‘isms’ supposedly associated with ‘The Left,’ including communism and anti-colonialism, as if ‘The Left’ is engaged in a battle against capitalism. Socialism, especially democratic socialism, remains strong to this day, and has nothing to do with identity politics. It blends capitalism and socialism. Furthermore, socialism has nothing to do with communism. They are two different philosophies. Anti-colonialism has nothing to do with communism as a political philosophy; the one existed long before the other.

Communism is an economic philosophy about class struggle and the distribution of wealth among labor, the bourgeoisie, and ownership. It usually applies to manufacturers, and at the time it was conceived, did not imagine labor unions working within the capitalist system would ever do so much for working people.

Anti-colonialism is a political movement in which undeveloped countries opposed their exploitation by more powerful, developed ones.

So the basic idea of this half-baked article is that ‘The Left’ couldn’t depend on communism and socialism, so they turned to ID politics to overthrow capitalism. His idea is that all the objections of ‘The Left’ are “facile” and “reductive,” but right wingers and whoever else is gullible enough to buy off on this crap are somehow the voices of “reason” who have been developed centuries old “aesthetic standards,” as if those standards are somehow an absolute, and not just in the eye of the beholder, and is the length of time they existed somehow makes them absolute.

What this author is trying to say is that he wants the standard to be white patriarchy.

“… the Left rejects the natural rights theory of the American Founding at the core of our tradition.”

What crap.

The problem with Hillsdale College and its ‘private contributors’ is that they have a slave-owner’s view of the Constitution. It is the view pushed by The Virginians, like Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, and others. They visualized a country of gentlemen farmers, slave owners, with an agricultural base, no central bank or Treasuries for investment, and no standing army. They viewed rights as something to be determined state by state, in direct contrast to the Federalist idea that “natural rights” are universal, and do not vary by state.

In fact, over time, the Federalist vision of the US won out over The Virginians. The vision of Washington, Hamilton, the Adams, and others at later times, successfully promoted abolition and human rights, freedom, equal rights under the law for all, and that a strong central government was the best guarantor of rights. It also supported a standing army, a strong economy based on solid debt instruments, and a centralized currency.

Instead, a new Democratic party was born, one that increasingly reflected the radical views of the Chicago protesters: that America, not Communism, was the real force for evil that needed to be contained and transformed. That Democratic party would nominate George McGovern in its 1972 convention and become a party obsessed with social justice, identity politics, and America’s past sins — essentially the party it is today

So, dbs, you just wasted everyone’s time by posting a crappy article and, when I spent time on it, responding with one line.

The big change for the political parties was not the Chicago Convention, but Brown v Board of Education in 1954, and the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The Democrats took the side of people fighting for their rights, and the Republicans took the side of those who wanted to deny them- racists and bigots- the white men who wanted to maintain their position at the expense of anyone who was not on board with them.

Today they are mostly old white men. The racism and bigotry that was behind the actions of the GOP became overt with Trump. It started with his run for the White House in 2012, when he made the fundamentally racist conspiracy theory about Birtherism the centerpiece of his campaign. In 2016 he stoked fears of blacks, a brown invasion, rainbow flags, and Islam.

There are only two types of Trump supporters- racists, bigots, misogynists, and xenophobes- and those who are willing to overlook those things. And so, if there is any identity politics going on, it is the party and its one main group- old white males- versus everyone else.

Cheer up. Old white males have most of the money. There just aren’t enough of them to help the GOP survive.

You talk about Trump lying and you can’t seem to keep yourself from lying, phx8.

Trump put the birther issue to bed. He didn’t start it, Obama did. He didn’t carry it through the 2008 election, Hillbilly did. Trump challenged Obama to bring out his birth certificate to put it all to rest. Obama had to reveal it so Trump would quit insisting he settle it.

Quit lying about the birther issue, phx8.

Your links to back up what you’ve said about the parties changing are missing, phx8. I have a reputable link backing up my assertion the Democratic party began using identity politics in the late 60’s and early 70’s. Where’s your links backing up what you claim, phx8?

dbs,
Seriously? You want to blame Birtherism on Obama and Hillary? Show me one quote- just one- in which HRC suggested Obama was not an American citizen. Because I can show you 37 tweets from Trump, not to mention videos.

Here are some quotes from Trump. Note that half of them are after Obama released his certificate: